BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.
DATE: 30.08.2016
PRESENT:
1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha : President
2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi : Member
Complaint No.: 115/2016
Complainant: Smt. Anasuya Patil,
Age: Major, Occ: Household,
23, Near Rajnagar,
Bapuji Nagar, Hubli-580032.
(Rep.By. Shri.Guru.Hiremath. Adv)
V/s
Respondent/s: 1) TATA AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
20.42.05 1st Floor, “B” Block, Kundgol Complex, Opp.Court, Club Road, Hubli-580029.
2) TATA AIA Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
Registered Corporate Office Address,
14th Floor, Towers “A”, Peninsula,
Business Park, Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013.
(Rep.By. Shri.D.B.Kallanagoudar. Adv)
O R D E R
By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.
1. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay the balance insured amount of Rs:1,51,858/- with interest, to pay Rs;20,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and deficiency in service and to order for cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
2. The case of the complainant is that, deceased insured Jagadish Guheshwargouda Patil had insured his life with respondents under the policy bearing No.CO96955004 on 28/2/2011. The insured had paid two instalments of premium of Rs;15,083/- each on the said policy. The insured died on 8/7/2012. The complainant being nominee submitted claim to the respondent on 19/3/2014. The respondent except returning the paid up premium of Rs;29,859/- rejected the claim submitted for Rs; 1,51,858/- . Thereafter the complainant got issued legal notice to the respondent on 11/12/2015 calling to settle the claim. But not settle the claim which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed instant complaint claiming the reliefs as sought.
3. In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondents appeared and filed detailed written version, taking contention that the very complaint is false, frivolous and concocted and not tenable either on law or on facts, and prays for dismissal of the same. While the answering respondent denied all the complaint averments and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. While the respondents admits the issuance of the policy and premium paid as admitted by the complainant. Among such other admissions and denials the answering respondents taken contention that the complainant suppressed real facts with regard to the age proof even though to the date of assurance the assured was minor suppressing the same has given false date of birth and entered into the contract of insurance and took the policy. Hence the said contract is void and revealed the facts in detail that at the time of assurance that is while furnishing the details for proposal forms the assured has furnished his date of birth as 1/6/1990 and in support of his age proof furnished his family ration card stating that Ration card has been issued on 4/6/2002.After submission of the claim while investing the same it is came to know to the respondent that the proposer has furnished wrong information. The family ration card of the deceased bearing No.HUB 04109276 was issued on 4/5/2009. To the date of issuance of ration card proposer was aged 12 years. In the proposal Form the proposer had furnished his date of birth as 1/6/1990 and had furnished further details issuance of the ration card on 4/6/2002. Hence the claim of the complainant is rejected and paid up amount of Rs:29858/- was returned by NEFT on 30/9/2004. Thereby contended that justified in repudiating the claim and denied deficiency of service and pray for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:
- Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
- Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
- To what relief the complainant is entitled ?
The complainant and respondents admits sworn to evidence affidavit relied on documents. Complainant filed notes of argument. Heard. Perused the records.
Finding on points is as under.
- In Negative.
- In Negative.
- As per order
R E A S O N S
P O I N T S 1 & 2
5. Ongoing through the pleadings, & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, the complainant is the nominee under the policy and deceased assured Jagadish Guheshwargouda Patil had insured his life under the policy of respondents.
6. Now the question to be determine non settlement of the claim amounts to deficiency of service, if so, for what reliefs the complainant is entitle.
7. Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetition.
8. The crux to be determine whether the deceased proposer had suppressed the real facts and had obtained the policy by furnishing false information with regard to his age.
9. In support of contentions of furnishing false information with regard to the age proof as contended by the respondents the respondents relied on Ex.R-4 Ration card pertaining to the family of deceased assured/proposer. On perusal of Ex.R-4 the said ration card has been issued on 4/6/2009 it is marked Ex.R-4(a) to the date of issuance Ex.R-4 the age of the decease proposer was 12 years this has been evidenced at Ex.R-4(b). Perusal of Ex.R-1 proposal/application form for insurance, whereas the deceased had furnished his date of birth as 1/6/1990 and proof for the said age he has furnished ration card details stating that ration card has been issued on 4/6/2002. When compared the details of Ex.R-1 application form with that of Ex.R-4 ration card which are quite detrimental and inconsistent to one and another and are not tallying. If the details of ration card is taken in to consideration, to the date of proposal the proposer was aged 13 years. While as per the details furnished by the deceased proposer in Ex.R-1 to the date of proposal the proposer was aged 20 years. By this it is evident that the proposer knowingly well of all the facts with regard to the date of birth and age has furnished false information and obtained the policy by entering into the contract by personification that he is major even though he was minor. Hence the very contract of the insurance entered by the proposer was void. Hence the said contract is not enforceable and the nominee under the void contract is not entitle for the benefit under the fake policy obtained.
10 However the respondents coming to know of the real facts rightly refunded the paid up premium and the complainant being a nominee received the same. As such the respondents have justified in repudiating the claim and thereby have not committed deficiency of service. Pro-contra the complainant fail to establish her case of deficiency of service by the respondents with cogent and appulsive evidence and hence complainant is not entitle for any relief much less the reliefs as sought.
11. In view of the discussion and decisions arrived we inclined to held Issue No.1 in negatively and Issue No.2 accordingly.
Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following.
O R D E R
Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.
(Dictated to steno, transcribed by her and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 30th day of August 2016)
(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi) (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)
Member President
Dist.Consumer Forum Dist.Consumer Forum
GDB
